Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice International


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 00:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Justice International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is a registered charity in England with the name "Justice International", but this is not that organization. This organization is apparently not registered as a UK charity. It also offers no means of donating money to the organization (its mailing address is listed as Justice International World, PO Box 0000, United Kingdom (see ) and its "donate online" link goes directly to CharityChoice which, when searched for this charity, lists it as unavailable for online giving). The group does not appear to be otherwise notable. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The commentary above is false; evidence is being allocated to illustrate the registered charity is in fact the organisation described within the article.

Kind Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC) — WilsonWilson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Furthermore with regards to notability consider the information below.

Justice International is respected in the legal world, recognised by the BAR of England and Wales and that of Egypt and south asian countries such as Bangladesh, With the latter supporting its cause. Thee organisation is also recognised and associated with several European governments such as Switzerland, whom the organisation collaborates with to hold discussions with countries of the arab continent and countries such as france and Norway regarding the crisis in the Middle East. The company is supported and associated with notable legal figures such as John Platts Mills QC, Sir Ivan Lawrence and many more. The company is also publicised internationally within many media formats.

Kind Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment WilsonWilson1 makes a lot of claims of notability for this organization, none of which are mentioned in the article, nor at the organization's website, nor in any other source that I have been able to find about the organization. For an organization that is so significant, its website paints it as one of the most opaque charities I have ever seen.  In the entire website, only three names are ever mentioned: John Platts-Mills, Sayyad MohyEddeen and Frank Slevin.  These three are listed as the founders of the organization.  There is no Board of Directors.  There is no clear method to give money to this group.  Their "latest news" is topped by  "Report Egypt 07", a document written over 5 years ago.  The "membership" page advises that if you would like a list of members, try the website's search function (which, unless you happen to already know the name of a member, is quite pointless).  In sum, the legitimacy of this organization seems questionable at best.  The notability of the organization is not at all questionable: it simply doesn't exist.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing out the shortcomings. I understand the position you are in and understand the objective view that you have taken. As a contributor i shall seek to ensure these shortcomings do not occur in the future.

WilsonWilson1 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to note that Justice International World is not a charity. Also it seems the website has been dormant and is need of immediate reform.

WilsonWilson1 (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The website has a page called "Get Involved" that includes the text
 * A gift of any amount, given individually or corporately, will allow JIW to serve as a voice for the voiceless in our world, providing men, women and children with rescue, support and renewed hope for their lives and futures.
 * which looks for all the world like a charity asking for donations. Additionally, Wilson stated above:
 * ...evidence is being allocated to illustrate the registered charity is in fact the organisation described within the article.
 * So, is Justice International World a charity or not?  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

After careful consideration i have established that the organisation is not a charity. Justice International is a non profit organisation, which carries out charitable work. The organisation is not yet a registered charity.

It is stated on the website the organisation has been running for a number of years by volunteers. It would appear that the statement regarding 'gifts' is suggesting that the volunteers accept gifts and contributions.

WilsonWilson1 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional newspaper articles images have been added as reference as well as new web references. One reference relates directly to Sir Ivan Lawerence QC and his comments on Justice International. More research is being conducted by myself regarding sources of reference.

WilsonWilson1 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete - the "sources" attached are total rubbish. To the point where this almost looks like a WP:HOAX. The one referred to above might "relate" to Lawrence but it's not by Lawrence - it's an invite (by someone representing the subject) inviting people to a talk about Egypt. There's nothing to suggest the talk was about the subject at all, despite what the in-article "reference" suggests. Even if it was, this wouldn't be a source for verifying that. The second is an anti-Israeli diatribe from an academic with music qualifications, copied from Rediscover911.com. Seriously. Others are news items that quote members of the subject organisation, though I'm not sure they're talking about the same organisation. Regardless, I can't see how this passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Stalwart 111  00:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As trustee of a registered trust since 1983 I am aware of the pain and perseverance that volunteers in providing public service endure. But the compliment of rendering assistance to the public overwhelms the hard work. I have attended three seminars hosted by Justice International at Westminster University, Regent Street London, Mosses Room in the House of Lords and the Honourable Middle Temple Hall at Temple Lane, London. I was very impressed by the professionalism the group displayed and inspired by their work. I met brilliant academics, diplomats and others attended the seminar at the westminister campus, and listened to the most articulated speech from Judge Elizabeth Lawson, QC at the House of Lords, who led the Justice International team to Cairo. Lawyers from several other jurisdictions including members of the English bar provided an illuminating inside to the theories and practicalities of implementing international human rights standards in different jurisdictions, and debated what various principles of rule of law stood for. I also met a delegation from Ankara, sent on behalf of the chief Justice Dr. Sami Selcuk, and many others from Africa, Asia and Washington.

From a recent seminar held by the group at Cricklewood on 11 February 2013 I understand that those affiliated to Justice International have relied on their pocket and pen to deliver a service for the public. The group have never received for public money and not therefore registered with charity commission. In 2009, a man of Pakistani origin affiliated to a Kashmiri political group l failed to get the Justice group to take on a task as it was political, copied their objectives and set up a company then registered with charity commission. That company: no; 06456519.....is now dissolved. The original Justice International Group have refused to pay any ransom for the name and are now operating as JUSTICE INTERNATIONALE, a non- profit making company limited by guarantee. We know that sometimes facts hurt because it exposes evil that is done. But the public has a right to know the facts. Public awareness can also help encourage the doers of wrong to mend but ignorance and contempt for public good does not.

I wish that public interest is upheld and good is done. Azadi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.25.194 (talk • contribs) COMMENTS for the public ' Does supreesion of the facts makes the violation of basic human rights by state functionary, legal? as Dani61 seems eager to protect. Iam a friend of the mass. Benjaman Manhush — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.142.4 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Responding to "The group have never sought to ask for public money...", I refer you to the paragraph cited above from the group's own Get Involved page: they are clearly asking for public money. The ip editor's comments amount to little more than an elaborately worded WP:ILIKEIT  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Seriously, what the? That makes even less sense than the essay from "Azadi" above. What are you accusing WikiDan61 of? You know what, don't bother. This is a deletion discussion and it should be about whether or not the subject of the article in question meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. If you think it does, please provide reliable sources that prove as much. If you think it doesn't, please explain why, citing Wikipedia policy as often as possible. I can't even work out if the essayist "Azadi" wants this deleted or kept. I have no idea what "Benjaman Manhush" is trying to say at all but I would strongly suggest he reads WP:NPA before commenting again. Stalwart 111  22:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Seriously, if public service work and contribution of distinguished people in our society are ' rubbish' and hoax' then who wants to see Wikipedia but stalwart1111?, As I stated before no amount of suppression or 'contempt' towards public charity as Azadi, calls it, justifies wrongs and violations. Apparently, the above commentator cannot see charity work unless he sees a label on it by a certification from the charity commission. There is numerous charitable works done on a daily basis by good people in our society without Wikipedia’s support. Whoever put this page up should have considered the issue of correct place for public display. people who seek to discredit public services and calls respectable public figures and their voluntary work 'rubbish' should take the anger and preserve it in repressive society. I hope charitable work of this group will continue irrespective of whether it is listed in Wikipedia or not. B. Manhush — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.42.7 (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Um... what? You might want to actually read what I wrote before launching another nonsensical tirade. I said the sources were rubbish, to the point where it looked like a hoax. You need to read WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V and probably WP:PROMO. At no point did I suggest someone's public service or volunteer work was rubbish and your suggesting I did is both unclever and uncivil. If you had taken the time to have a look at some of those policies, you'd understand the purpose of this discussion. It has nothing to do with "supression" or whether Wikipedia "supports" charitable works or not. Great works, good deeds and support for others is worthwhile but it doesn't make an organisation notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia (again, see WP:N). Even being a "certified charity" (which I didn't mention at all) wouldn't be enough on its own to justify inclusion. You've still not presented a single argument (citing WP policy) to explain why this article should be kept. Stalwart 111  09:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Im a little confused myself.


 * Keep :Nevertheless with regards to the sources: I assure you the article is not a hoax; the first source can be backed up by a PDF document i have downloaded from the website, which was cited by WikiDan in his first comment. The document is a report on Egypt and Justice International's involvement. The report is signed by Sir Ivan lawerence and Sayyad Mohyeddeen. How can I add this PDF.


 * - response to Stalwart111; you have suggested the sources are rubbish but have only sought to address a few of them. There are several sources which present articles in different langauges regarding Justice International and Platt-mills and Mohyeddeen two of the founders of the organisations and their involvement in several countries such as Singapore, Turkey and Chile. have a look at theses sources and use Google translate to read them.


 * - With regards to your point (stalwart111) about the newspaper articles, it is clear that the articles quote the key people involved in the organisation; Justice International. You cannot suggest that the articles are not talking about the same organisation when the wiki article i have contributed to is about Justice international which is run by these key people, clearly the same organisation these newspapers have written about. There is no explanation to your argument.


 * Furthermore you have made no reference to the article by BBC NEWS which quotes Sayyad Mohyeddeen and Justice International and their involvement In Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's trial or the AFP’s report.


 * regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for actually discussing the potential sources, WilsonWilson1. I made the point in my original comment that the sources provided (the ones you highlight above) are by members of the organisation, not about the organisation. We need reliable sources that give "significant coverage" to the organisation itself.


 * Before you upload it, a report published by Mohyeddeen would probably not be considered independent if he is one of the founders. We need independent newspaper articles, books, magazines, reports, etc, that talk about the organisation itself; its history and its activities. In some cases that can include coverage of the work individuals have done under the organisation banner but I would think to pass WP:ORGDEPTH such sources would need to include a depth of coverage about the role of the organisation itself.


 * The confusion about names and history (detailed above) meant regular editors here couldn't even work out whether the organisation mentioned in various items was the organisation in question. That's the sort of thing we're used to seeing for hoaxes and jokes (which happen more regularly than you might think). I'm happy to accept that it's not a hoax (and I only ever said it "looks like"), but there's a big gap to bridge between existence and notability. Existence ≠ Notability. Stalwart 111  12:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And as an aside, you might want to have a read of WP:MEAT and WP:CIVIL and have a talk to some of the people who have quite obviously been asked to come here and comment without any understanding of Wikipedia process or policy. Coming here and talking about "suppression" and "discrediting" and "messages of the masses" actually does your cause a great disservice, not to mention the obvious WP:COI. Wikipedia is not for promotion, even of good causes. It's an encyclopedia. Stalwart 111  12:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Response to Stalwart111: I completely understand the angle from which you are approaching this issue; nevertheless It is a fallacy to suggest that the sources provided 'are by the members'. The sources provided are articles written by various international newspapers and other organisations, such as BBC, AFP and other world media. The sources explicitly mention the organisation and its involvement in international affairs through the members of the organisation and individuals of great notability such as Lord Ahmed. Translate some of the sources and this is what you shall decipher. I implore that you make a point and explain what suggests or shows your point is valid. The mentioning of Justice international in foreign affairs within International newspapers and media outlets clearly suggests its notability.


 * With regards to the report, I intend to use it as evidence to show Sir Ivan Lawrence's involvement; Furthermore the report has been written and signed by Sir Ivan Lawrence and approved by signatures of the legal team of the organisation. Please could you give me instructions of how i could upload this PDF. Sir Ivan Lawrence is not a member of the organisation but an individual figure who reports and discusses the work of justice international to parliament and international governments. Within the report there is exhaustive material which presents the notability of the organisation. The report is a public document sent to organisations such as amnesty, international parliaments, the UN and various international governments; all suggested within Sir Ivan Lawrence's report. Please could you provide instructions on how to present this PDF document which can further clarify the notability of the organisation?


 * With regards to the confusion, I have written within the article that the organisation is also known as Justice Internationale ltd, which is what the organisation is currently registered as. Seeing as it has been established that this article is not a hoax as that would be a great waste of my time, let's consider the organisations notability; it is clear that sufficient reliable sources have been provided which attribute notability to the organisation. The organisation and its landmark cases in such fields and cases as that of the deputy prime minister of Malaysia, prime minister of Turkey, former dictators of Chile, and Egypt, whose news had captured the world attention and books and films are being made, exceed the point of notability as provided in wiki’s guideline.


 * With regards to the individuals who have commented about 'suppression' and 'discrediting' I agree that those comments have been aimed at responding to the comments made by earlier commentators and less related to the issue in question. It would not be appropriate to associate their comments to my argument as I have provided a more than reasonable response to the issues you have raised in accordance to the Wikipedia guidelines. I completely understand Wikipedia is not for promotion and is an encyclopedia.


 * Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I note that the article formerly listed the organization's official website as http://justiceinternationalworld.org/ but that this reference has been removed from the article. I also note that said website is listed as "down for maintenance".  I note finally that "Justice Internationale, Ltd" is listed as having been incorporated on February 13, 2013.  Unfortunately, we have only the word of one or two editors here to indicate that any entity named "Justice International" or "Justice Internationale" is in any way related to any organization that may have been mentioned in any given newspaper article.  While it may be unfortunate for this organization if what has been said is true (about the hijacking of a corporate name by another organization), it renders impossible any assessment of the validity of any notability claims made here or in the article.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree, ^that^ will make it nearly impossible to establish notability, I'm afraid. In essence, Wikipedia reports on what has been reported on. If issues like the above haven't been resolve then it's going to be impossible to do that in any meaningful way. Stalwart 111  19:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * With regards to the website link in the article i have removed that due to the site going into maintenance, as it would be pointless to cite it at the present time. I await for the new website to re-cite the link.


 * With regards to the relation between the two names 'Justice International' and 'Justice Internationale' it can be deduced that the two are the same organisation; there simply has been a shift in the name from 'Justice International' to 'Justice Internationale' The newspaper articles and the other forms of media which have been cited all make reference to Sayyad Mohyeddeen the Director and founder of 'Justice International' who is now the director and subscriber of 'Justice Internationale' refer to this link - . This clearly shows that the two organisations are the same one and so the validity of the notability with regards the organisation in question still applies. The shift in the name of the organisation suggests that there in fact was a hijacking of the corporate name.


 * It is clear that the organisation in question clearly meets the notability criteria and is therefore valid for inclusion in Wikipedia. Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but having the same directors does not make it the same organisation, especially if there is another organisation still using the "old name". "Deducing" as much would be considered original research (see WP:OR). We would probably need a reliable source that provides background on the name change/hijacking/transfer/whatever happened. Your word (just like mine) is not a reliable source sufficient for verifying ecyclopedic facts. I disagree notability is "clear", in fact I would suggest we're not even close. And the burden of proof is still with you. Simply saying it is notable does not make it so. But if you could provide a couple of good reliable sources that give significant coverage to the organisation, it would be a different matter entirely. Stalwart 111  20:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * response: Yes, following your argument the founder 'Sayyad Mohyeddeen' of Justice International, who in the media, is not in any way part of that organisation which you say is still using the same name. The new organisation has recently been registered, thus there couldn't be any reliable public sources other than the company house record where the founder of the old organisation is the founder of the new organisation registered this month.


 * The only sources which I can plausible think could be cited to satisfy what you call a reliable source that provides background information of the name change would be the names of directors, the constitution of the organisation, the office address and the bank details.


 * It is practicably impossible to expcet an organisation that has only been registered only days ago to have 'significant coverage to the organisation' other than what i have already stated above or to rely on our own intelligence to make the necessary inference or ask the directors for the information of the name change.


 * With regards to the notability I note that you have repeatedly made remarks on notability. Please kindly read each source and point out which source you consider to be lacking reliability and legitimacy. Are BBC, AFP and several international newspapers unreliable sources?


 * regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're absolutely right about the difficulty of finding sources relating to a less-than-a-month-old organisation (even if it is actually a continuation of a previous organisation's work). The org's constitution wouldn't be considered independent, obviously. Official registry listings for name changes, bank details and the like might prove existence, but probably not notability. I'm more than happy to accept that the organisation might generate enough press coverage to become notable in the future. We refer to such subjects as WP:TOOSOON. It's a matter of waiting for the organisation to be covered in mainstream media before it can be covered here. I've not seen any sources that provide significant coverage of the organisation, as yet, but I'm happy to look at anything you post here. A source might be generally reliable (BBC, AFP, etc) but we still require them to have given the organisation significant coverage. "Significant coverage" and "reliable source" are two different things, but we need both. A source can give significant coverage but not be considered reliable or independent. A source can be reliable but not provide significant coverage. The one from the BBC, for example, simply says that Mohyeddeen is a director (though of an organisation with a different name). That's not significant coverage of the organisation. Stalwart 111  03:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The two points you have raised are not new.


 * Significant coverage: 'means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material' as stated in the Wikipedia notability guideline. If you look at any of the news articles either from BBC, AFP, Gazette, New Strait Times or the Middle East Times, you wil see that they have not simply made a trivial mention of the organisation or its members. In fact in each news article have paragraphs after paragraphs devoted to justice international and its members. You falsely stated that BBC only simply mentions Sayyad Mohyeddeen; please read more thoroughly and do not simply browse over and make an assumptive statement. The article by the BBC devotes half of its article to Justice international and Sayyad mohyeddeen as 'international help'. Furthermore the newspper image of the New Strait Times, devotes the entire news about Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahims case on Justice International, its director, its chairman, its location and its membership and their involvement within this case. Again the news article written in the Middle East Times, devotes the whole news regarding British delegation of Justice International, its press conference, its involvement, its members and Judge Elizabeth Lawson QC's Presence as the leader of the British delegation group. Also reference can be made to My Life of Crime Cases Causes written by Sir Ivan Lawrence QC and forwarded by the former Home secretary Lord Michael Howard. This book devotes two pages to the work of  this organisation and its director- pg 397 and 398.
 * - I cannot cite all the references from the wiki article on the organisation please refer to that page and carefully read through each source then point out to me how each source is not reliable or does not establish significant coverage of the organisation in question.


 * As to the issue of the continuity of the organisation, justice international continues its work with the same objectives, mission, personnel and reputation with a linguistic change of an e at the end of its name in order to avoid confusing the public with the hoax organisation registered under only the UK charity commission and not companies house, and purports to operate in Kashmir and the Gulf. Justice International(e) had and still has a global operational jurisdiction and therefore its reasonable to suggest that this be the main reason for there website being under construction to make the necessary changes. If we make a search for Justice International in conjunction with Sayyad Mohyeddeen we will find that there wasn't or isn't any registration of such an organisation, which would suggest the notable organisation mentioned within the international media formats was not registered as its corporate name was hijacked before it could do so, thus the organisation and its members and supporters had to register under Justice Internationale.


 * If we persist on arguing what to my mind reasonably clear than we can do so until the 'cows come home' to no avail.


 * Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've read the BBC source - the article is split in two, with the second half devoted to "international legal help" of which half (four lines) is about Justice International of which half (two of the four lines) constitutes quotes from Mohyeddeen. The name of the organisation is mentioned once, to explain where he is from. Sorry, but 2 lines of editorial prose and 2 lines from the organisation's director really isn't "significant coverage" in my opinion. You can disagree, but the burden is still on you to convince other editors that the subject is notable, not the other way around. Unless I'm missing something, the Middle East Times article is about the delegation which includes a member of the subject organisation. I maintain that it contributes to the notability of Mohyeddeen, but not to that of Justice International which is mentioned once in relation to his involvement. The organisation doesn't inherit notability from notable members. Yes, we can keep discussing it but it's up to you whether you think that's worthwhile. I've explained what I think of the sources and you are free to disagree. My only interest here is in upholding WP policy. I'm not convinced by the sources provided so far for a variety of reasons, but maybe others will be. I'll leave it alone for a while and let others have a look and we'll see what they have to say about it. Stalwart 111  22:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But if you're going to discuss this with others I suggest you indent (using : ) your comments. There's also no need to "vote" keep before every comment. It's not a vote; these are decided by WP:CONSENSUS and weight of argument. Stalwart 111  22:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for coming thus far, even though you keep repeating the same argument as if the burden you speak of is on a scale of beyond all reasonable doubt. This is only a discussion on whether or not public interest can be served in an encyclopedic format about charitable work and matters regarding public interest. It is more of a question of the balance of probability; whether it is more probable that this organisation,given the evidence provided is more probable to be notable (significantly covered)in public media. In the absence of any reasonable findings refuting notability or significant coverage or the like that this organisation or its members or its work is not 'notable'balance would, in any impartial assessment, go in favor of the direction of evidence and not the other way around.


 * Your selective choice of the sources rather than all the sources submitted, and your summary evaluation indicates that you are not really paying a reasonable attention to come to a proper conclusion. Further indication of your reluctance is indicated from your assertion 'of which half (four lines)is about Justice International of which half (two of the four lines)constitutes quotes from Mohyeddeen. The name of the organisation is mentioned once, to explain where he is from'. this shows that you expect the whole of the news item to concentrate on the name of the organisation and its members rather than the subject of the news item which is the case.


 * Besides this you have not commented on the other exhaustive evidences provided.


 * With regards the news item in the Middle East Times you have taken the same approach, you cannot expect the name of the organisation to be repeated in every line of the news. I thank you for accepting that Mohyeddeen is notable, but wouldn't you agree that he is notable because of the organisation, Justice International for which he works and was representing and because of the type of work the organisation does. This is like saying 'the tree is insignificant, but the fruits are good'.


 * Clearly we have established the sources are reliable sources according to the Wikipedia guidelines.Furthermore there is no substantiated argument that can supersede or deny the notability of either the organisation or its members. And finally if the sources are reliable and the sources mention the organisation, its members and its work as well as its location and its membership; continual arguments refuting significant coverage would seem a futile exercise that is contrary to the evidence as per the Wikipedia guidelines on significant coverage. Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've explained my position and you've explained yours. I've explained that I believe yours is contrary to WP guidelines. "Probability", "public interest", "doubt" and "evidence" are for court rooms (see WP:WL). This is a discussion in which we aim to build consensus with convincing arguments that (properly) cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I disagree with your arguments because they interpret policy and guidelines differently to the manner in which, in my experience, they are ordinarily interpreted (see WP:OUTCOMES). But that doesn't mean you are prevented from making such arguments, and I'm not the only one you have to convince. In the end, an administrator will come here, weigh the arguments made (against policy) and make a determination as to whether a consensus has been reached. Like I said, I'm going to leave this alone so you can spend some time discussing this with other editors who might have an entirely different take on the sources than I do. Stalwart 111  23:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC).


 * Thankyou for enlightening me on the wikipedia guidelines, with regards to the use of the word 'evidence' it is quoted within the Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability: WP:NRVE. The use of the words 'probability' 'doubt' and 'public interest' is consequential to your use of the words 'burden of proof', which I myself was confused with as you are now with my use of the words 'doubt' etc. The sources I have provided clearly meet both the significant coverage and the reliable sources with regards the Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, none of the sources I have provided can be attributed as WP:OR as all sources are publicly accessible. Regardless of this you have attributed some of the sections with the conduct of original research. With regards to WP:ORGDEPTH there is no question about its absence as the sources provided cover the 'depth'.


 * Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My point was not the words - it was the attitude, as outlined at WP:WL.
 * I disagree that coverage of people associated with the organisation counts as coverage of the organisation itself. At all, let alone "clearly". And my disagreement is based on WP:INHERIT, WP:ORGDEPTH and associated community consensus. And you're doing yourself no favours by adding "sources" to the article that were written by people associated with the organisation, like Lawrence's book or commentary from Mohyeddeen. They will never be considered independent enough to be considered reliable. Stalwart 111  23:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've just spent some time going through the sources again. I have to say, there was some pretty flimsy referencing there - multiple copies of the same story given different titles, the same article posted on different sites listed as different sources, 4 times. Rather than 23 sources, there are actually 15 and of those, 8 are by members of the organisation and a couple of the others look to be based almost entirely on press releases. Hmm. Stalwart 111  00:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Response: with regards to WP:WL my point is similar to that of yours; it is not about the words. I at the time was not aware of this and was simply responding as such due to the fact you stated 'burden of proof', which indicated a legal approach which i was confused by as I thought this was a discussion - this I have stated in my previous comment. Unlike yourself, I was not aware of WP:WL and thus I adopted a similar approach as yourself, following your example.


 * with regards to WP:ORGDEPTH it is clear that this criteria is met. 'The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: - sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,- the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,- inclusion in lists of similar organizations,[2]- the season schedule or final score from sporting events,- routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,- brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,- simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,- routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),- routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,- routine restaurant reviews,- quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or - passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.


 * Many of the sources provided, specifically the newspaper article images do not simply make trivial mentions. Additionally several independent sources have been cited.


 * With Regards to WP:INHERIT It is not appropriate to suggest that the organisation is inheriting notability from its members when it is the other way round. The only way the work of the organisation can be conducted is by its personnel - its members are its 'hands' and 'feet'. Your analysis of the notability of Justice International must be put into context. WP:INHERIT states 'not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable'. However this cannot be applied to Justice International as it is not the case that Mohyeddeen is mentioned solely he is mentioned in conjunction to 'carrying out' the work of Justice international, under its aims and objectives.


 * With regards to Sir Ivan Lawrence; he is associated because he shares similar goals to that of Justice International. He is not a member of the organisation nor an advocate. He is independent thus he can be considered reliable. For example if a book was to be written by Deputy Prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, or a report was to be published by a member of the government, it could be considered reliable as they would not be wholly associated, and thus could be considered independent and reliable, as per WP:RS


 * With regards the duplicates of some of the news items from different sources, I had added them to support the verification of a statement, I now understand however this is not needed.


 * Furthermore I thank you on 'cleaning up' some of the references. Nonetheless with regards the references from Ikhwanweb, you have falsified the information on the sources stating they are from Justice International rather than Ikhwanweb an independent.


 * source. Further more you attributed one of the sources author as Dr Mohiedden, when in fact nowhere on the source does is state that. Furthermore one of the Press Release articles is not a press release from Justice International but Ikhwanweb . I do however agree that one of the sources is stated as written by Justice International on Ikhwanweb and maybe a recycling of a press release from Justice International. '''Please do not falsify the sources as it means I have to take up more of my time to rectify the falsification' Please stick to the Wiki guidelines!


 * Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Careful, WilsonWilson, you are making personal attacks. As for reliablie sources, I think I found one. Zaminamina (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologise if anything I have written has been interpreted as a personal attack. I assure this is not my intention. Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to respond to your obvious personal attacks. It's clear now that promoting Justice International is your sole purpose here, and it seems fairly obvious to me that you have a conflict of interest. Ikhwanweb is not a news source, in fact it says on its own site: "Ikhwanweb is not a news website". It is a repository of things published by other people. So when an item includes "Justice International, Press Release" then I'm going to call it a press release from Justice International. Ikhanweb does not have the sort of editorial oversight we expect of editorial news sources - the fact that they reprint press releases entirely speaks to that. The notability here is, I assure you, far from "clear" and your repeating your claim over and over again without actually building consensus for it is a pointless exercise. Stalwart 111  21:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, i am alison. New to all this! but i take discussion and if its for good cause, passionately. I READ THE PAGE ON jUSTICE INTERNATIONAL and found much of the information useful reference. This group clearly have been doing some good deeds. The problem i see here is one of rational discussion. the Wiki policy for deletion is stated on verifiability of sources. I have looked and checked the sources attached to the page, and read the all the comments made so far. The news papers cut attached to the page are, i must admit an over rating. However, the other sources do point to clear varifiable sources and if no harm or violation of wiki,s principles, the page is a good reference. stalwart started off lebelling noteble people and reputable news media as 'rubbish, from the discussion stalwart does not seem to have been convinced and still maintain his original 'suspision', though he is not using the same vocabulary. I dont know if wilson is part of Justice International group or promoting the group. I dont know if the group need promotion, which stalwart thinks. But I would not be irrational to LABEL or accuse anynone without proof. And if wilson is as Stalwart accuses him,and I hope he can support his allegation, that is unethical. If he is not, then Stalwart has come down on a personal level and is completely out of line. The discussion must now be looked at by some one rational in the wiki's administrtion, Regards,Alison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonrational (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)  — Alisonrational (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.